More About the Midterms

---

We're roughly 6½ months from the midterm elections.

With a split Congress, the priorities for both political parties have been predictable, haven't they? I mean, the Democrats have the Senate and would like to have the House, too. The Republicans have the House, and they would like to take over the Senate. All things being equal, either could happen — and neither could happen.

CNN's Ashley Killough reports that the political terrain is getting worse for Democrats. Killough reports that five Senate races that were previously thought to be reasonably safe for Democrats have become competitive. That is based on information from a memo from the political director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee — so take it with as many grains of salt as you wish.

Until the votes are counted in November, of course, anything (theoretically) is possible, but, as I have pointed out before, midterm elections don't usually work out too well for the president's party, especially in the second midterm of a president's tenure.

Historically speaking, therefore, since Democrats hold the White House, they are likely to experience setbacks in the midterms — unless something dramatic happens that has clear benefits for the president's party. How severe those setbacks will be is unclear.

With each passing day, the likelihood of something dramatic happening lessens.

How's it looking to observers so far?

• Over at Sabato's Crystal Ball, the emphasis lately is on the House of Representatives, which Democrats had hoped (and, presumably, still do) to flip in the fall.
  
  At one time, the Democrats with whom I spoke expressed optimism upon hearing of the retirements of Republican incumbents. Based on my highly unreliable conversations, that mood has shifted. In more recent weeks and months, the Republicans with whom I have spoken have expressed the same sense of optimism regarding the retiring Democrat incumbents.
  
  Actually, writes Geoffrey Skelley, associate editor for the Crystal Ball, "the degree of turnover in the House this cycle is not unusually high." An average of slightly more than 70 House members leaves every two years, Skelley writes, "about one–sixth of the total House membership."
  
  So far, 50 members of the House are leaving for one reason or another. Some are retiring. Others are seeking other offices. The reasons for a member's departure can be many (including losing a bid for renomination) and additional retirements may be announced, but, considering we are now better than midway through April, you have to wonder if the number of retirements will even reach the average.
  
  Currently, the Crystal Ball anticipates a gain for Republicans in the House of 5–8 seats. That is roughly what the Rothenberg Political Report projects.
  
  To people who haven't been watching elections too closely until, say, the last 10 years or so, that may seem like a low number. In the context of other recent elections, I suppose it is. In the last five election cycles, either Republicans or Democrats gained at least 21 House seats three times.
  
  But those other two elections, in which one party or the other gained fewer than 10 seats, were more typical of American legislative elections.
  
  An election in which one party or the other wins as many seats as the parties did in 2006, 2008 and 2010 is seen as a transformational year by political observers.
  
  Charlie Cook's Cook Political Report finds 17 House seats up for grabs. If all those seats were held by Republicans and Democrats carried each, it would be enough for the Democrats to seize control of the House.
  
  The problem is that only four of those seats are held by Republicans. The rest are in Democrat hands. To win the House, it looks more and more like Democrats will need something dramatic to happen.
• The latest Rothenberg Political Report finds Stuart Rothenberg obsessing over the rumor that outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius might challenge Sen. Pat Roberts in Kansas.
  
  
  
  Rothenberg wrote that his initial response to a New York Times article that reported Sebelius, a former two–term governor of Kansas, was "considering entreaties from Democrats who want her to run" was that Democrats "had to be encouraged," given the difficulty they have had in recruiting quality candidates to challenge Republican incumbents.
  
  "After that," wrote Rothenberg, "I quickly came to my senses." He pointed out the things that occurred to me immediately upon hearing that Sebelius was considering making a run — things that should have given her pause if she really was thinking about it. Maybe they did.
  
  It is true that, at one time, Sebelius was a popular figure in Kansas. She was elected governor in 2002 with more than 53% of the vote, and she was re–elected in 2006 with 58% of the vote.
  
  But she was perceived as more of a centrist then.
  
  "I remember interviewing her years ago," Rothenberg writes, "when she was running for governor. She was all business. No chit–chat. Not much personal warmth at all. She was all about Kansas and managing things properly."
  
  That image has been transformed by the Obamacare experience. It is no secret that Sebelius' name is intricately tied to Obamacare, which is not popular in red–state Kansas. Her boss for the last five years, Barack Obama, got 41% of the vote in Kansas when he first sought the presidency in 2008, and that dropped to 38% of the vote when he ran for re–election in 2012.
  
  If Sebelius had run for the Senate, Obamacare would have been front and center, keeping the story in the headlines and benefiting Republicans elsewhere at a time when Democrats have been trying to change the subject to ... anything.
  
  Then there is Kansas' electoral history in Senate races. It hasn't been unusual for Democrats (even Democrat women) to be elected governor of Kansas — rare but not unusual — but Kansans haven't voted to send a Democrat to the U.S. Senate since (appropriately) the year before the premiere of "The Wizard of Oz."
  
  Rothenberg concluded that the Senate seat is safe for Roberts — and, apparently, so did Sebelius.
  
  Republicans need to win six seats to take control of the Senate. Rothenberg currently thinks a gain of 4–8 seats is probable. The Crystal Ball says Republicans appear likely to win four Senate seats with three more rated tossups. The Cook Political Report is a little more conservative right now, saying that three Democrat–held seats appear likely to flip and five more are up for grabs. But it also says two Republican–held seats are in jeopardy.
• Those observers analyze politics professionally. I only do it on an amateur level.
  
  But, at this stage of a midterm campaign, I think it is useful to compare presidential job approval ratings for presidents in their second midterm election years.
  
  About a week ago, the McClatchy/Marist poll reported that Obama's approval rating was 45%. That's better than some polls, not as good as others, but it is the most recent one of which I am aware.
  
  How does that compare to other presidents in their second midterm election years?
  
  Well, Obama's immediate predecessor, George W. Bush, had an approval rating of 39% in a Los Angeles Times poll conducted in April 2006. Bush seldom enjoyed approval ratings of 40% or higher in 2006. His Republicans suffered, losing six Senate seats and 32 House seats.
  
  In April 1998, Bill Clinton had just survived an attempt to impeach him, and he was enjoying consistent approval ratings in the 60s. Thanks to the backlash against the impeachment attempt, the party division in the Senate was unchanged, and Clinton's Democrats actually gained four seats in the House.
  
  Ronald Reagan was facing his second midterm election in 1986. In mid–April of that year, Gallup reported that his approval rating was 63%. Reagan's Republicans lost eight Senate seats and five House seats.
  
  The circumstances of the midterm election of 1974 were unique in American history. Richard Nixon had been re–elected in 1972, but he resigned about three months before the midterm election of 1974. His successor, Gerald Ford, had to face the wrath of the voters in the grip of Watergate backlash.
  
  Nixon was still president in April 1973, and Gallup reported his approval rating at 26%. Republicans lost five Senate seats and 49 House seats.
  
  Dwight Eisenhower faced his second midterm election in 1958. In April 1958, Gallup reported his approval rating at 55%. 1958 was a tough year for Ike. His approval dipped below 50% in late March for the first time in his presidency. In November, Eisenhower's Republicans lost 13 Senate seats and 48 House seats.
  
  Harry Truman wasn't elected president, but he wound up serving most of Franklin D. Roosevelt's fourth term, and he presided over the midterm elections of 1946. The midterms of 1950 were the second midterms of his presidency, and, in the spring of 1950, his stunning victory in the 1948 presidential election was a distant memory, and he was fluctuating from the 30s to the 40s in his Gallup job approval ratings. Democrats lost six Senate seats and 29 House seats.
  
  Roosevelt had his own troubles. In the spring of 1938, with the second midterm of his presidency approaching, FDR's approval rating was 54% less than two years after he was re–elected in a landslide. In November, Roosevelt's Democrats lost six Senate seats and 71 House seats.

As Clear As Mud

My mother used to say that to me whenever I tried to talk my way out of something I had done (and didn't want to admit to doing).

Tried would be the key word in that sentence, I suppose. I don't think I ever was able to talk my way out of anything with her.

"That's as clear as mud," she would say, and I would have to own up to the truth, whatever it was, because I could tell, from the look on her face, that she wasn't buying any of what I had been saying.

After a lifetime of observing American politics, I am rarely surprised by the behavior of elected leaders in either party, but I must confess that I am baffled by the turn things have taken in recent years.

The momentum was with the Democrats in 2006 and 2008, but they let what seemed like a truly transformational opportunity slip through their fingers, and Republicans seized the momentum in 2010, turning it into House gains of historic proportions.

Yet now, only two months after, Charlie Cook writes in his Cook Report that the 2012 GOP nomination is up for grabs.

That seems odd to me. I mean, after enjoying midterm success unlike virtually anything of which any of the prospective nominees would have dreamed two years earlier, it seems that someone should be seizing the momentum.

And perhaps he — or she — will. But no one has — yet.

"In most years, Republicans tap the person whose 'turn' it is to be the party's standard–bearer," writes Cook, "and that individual's identity is often known long before the start of the primary and caucus season."

That certainly seems true to me. The Democrats have always been more likely to nominate an insurgent candidate who caught lightning in a bottle than Republicans.

That doesn't mean the Republicans haven't had years when the race for the nomination drew many contenders. It may appear, in hindsight, that some recent Republican nominees had the prize handed to them, but it certainly hasn't always been easy for the nominee to claim it.

But its value has been undeniable. Recent history shows that the one who is nominated often wins the election:

• In 1980, Ronald Reagan defeated seven rivals during the primaries. Most were not serious candidates, but a couple of them continued to compete even after Reagan had secured the nomination.
  
  Reagan, of course, went on to win that election — and a second term four years later.


• In 1988, with Reagan prevented by law from seeking a third term, the races for both nominations drew crowded fields. Reagan's vice president, George H.W. Bush, prevailed over Bob Dole and Jack Kemp (who would run on the same ticket eight years later) and went on to be elected in November.


• As many as a dozen Republicans were contenders, to various degrees, for the 2000 GOP nomination, but, ultimately, it came down to a fight between Bush's son, George W. Bush, and John McCain.

In short, there may be many people who are nominally seeking the GOP nomination — but, usually, only two or three have the organization, the financial support and the winds of history propelling them forward.

This time is different, Cook says. This time, all the usual indicators seem to mean nothing.

None of the arguments for those who would normally be considered "next in line" — Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney — "is particularly convincing," he writes.

Senators are "often grossly overrepresented," Cook observes, but no sitting senators appear to be entering the race.

Governors, both sitting and former, have claimed at least one presidential nomination in all but one of the last nine elections — and the exception was the most recent one. But none of the governors who has been mentioned has generated much excitement.

During the primaries and the caucuses, more attention typically is paid to the contests on the Democratic side because the Republicans almost always unite behind one person early on. It's been 35 years since a battle for the GOP nomination was not resolved well before the last primary vote was cast.

But Cook reports that no one seems to be in the driver's seat for this nomination.

It doesn't appear to be about philosophy — "Among the potential Republican contenders, all oppose abortion and gun control, are skeptical of Big Government and favor cutting taxes and spending," Cook writes — as it is a matter of "style, tone, temperament, and, most important, emphasis."

As Cook sees it, the choice is about which path to take, not the direction — so that means the voters who participate in 2012's Republican primaries will be indicating whether they think their party's initial mission in its presumed return to power should be social, economic or foreign.

It really looks like there may be a battle brewing over the very soul of the party of Lincoln.

And, at this moment, it's as clear as mud who the winner will be.

Predicting the House

I was never a mathematician.

I mean, when I was a child, I did all right on my multiplication tables. And I managed to keep up with my classmates — sort of — when we moved on to more advanced types of math, like algebra and geometry.

But I must confess that, when we got into numerical constructions that involved figures that went into five or six digits or more, that was about the point where I got off the bus.

I do understand enough about math to know that the Democrats are about to get pummeled. I don't know how badly, but I suspect that it will be impressive, much like the 1994 midterms — and with about the same outcome, too.

Anyway, today my attention is on the battle for the House. In the next couple of days, I will write about the battle for the Senate.

As I say, I am not a mathematician. But I know the numbers are crumbling for the Democrats.

And many of them seem to be caught by surprise, like the proverbial deer caught in the headlights. How could that be possible? The signs have been all around them for more than a year.

First, there were all those polls showing slippage for both Barack Obama and the Democrats after the euphoria of the spring of 2009 wore off.

But many Democrats chose to ignore the signals the polls were sending to them. I distinctly remember one of my friends admonishing me that polls aren't accurate, that no matter what the polls were saying, the voters would stick with Obama and the Democrats because the Republicans were clearly to blame for all the nation's ills.

And they went forward, full speed ahead, with an increasingly unpopular health care proposal while ignoring the very issue that had made Obama the first Democrat in more than 30 years to receive a clear majority of the vote — job creation.

It got a little harder to ignore the gathering storm when Republican Scott Brown captured Ted Kennedy's Senate seat back in January. Many Democrats were understandably stunned by that development.

But Jeff Jacoby suggested, in the Boston Globe, that the Democrats had been handed a "blessing in disguise."

His only condition? "[I]f only they are wise enough to recognize it." And the Democrats were assuaged.

Well, I guess we'll find out if they were that wise in a little more than a week. But I never felt that they were, and their last–minute attempts to breathe life into an employment picture that is half again as bad as it was the day Obama took office have been transparent, at best.

In their hearts, Democrats seem to know what is coming; the recriminations have already begun.

I'll give Obama credit for realizing that he failed to give adequate attention to the political side of issues in the first half of his term and for placing the blame for it squarely on his own shoulders — well, sort of.

---

"I think that one of the challenges we had two years ago was we had to move so fast, we were in such emergency mode, that it was very difficult for us to spend a lot of time doing victory laps and advertising exactly what we were doing, because we had to move on to the next thing," Obama said. "And I take some responsibility for that."

The attitude was to get the policy right, "and we did not always think about making sure we were advertising properly what was going on," Obama continued.

CNN wire staff

---

Well, as Mario Cuomo observed a quarter of a century ago, "You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose." And this president, while gifted at the poetry part, has never been able to master the prose.

Much like his predecessor, he just can't seem to take the blame for anything.

And that, I suspect, is at the heart of the disconnect between Obama and the voters. Obama feels compelled to remind the voters that he inherited the bad economy. But that isn't the problem.

The problem is that the voters already understand that. Their disenchantment is not due to origin. It is due to the absence of evidence of improvement.

Obama may think all sorts of grand things about himself and his historically inevitable role, but the thing that broke open his race with John McCain was the economic implosion and the massive hemorrhaging of jobs that continued through his first year as president.

He has never been enough of a politician to recognize the one thing that the voters expected from him above all else — leadership through harrowing economic times. Even if a president can't produce jobs, he should be enough of a politician to know how to take credit for his efforts to promote job creation by those who can do it.

That is called reassuring the voters. And this president, as intelligent as he is, couldn't grasp the national need for that. Even if you have limited knowledge or understanding of history or human psychology, you know that Americans respond favorably to — and remember with fondness — presidents who feel their pain.

Presidents who appear aloof or distant in trying times usually do not remain president very long.

Many were expecting some sort of solidarity from the coalition of irregular and first–time voters who fueled Obama's election two years ago.

But, one by one, the groups that helped Obama by actually coming out and voting for him in unprecedented numbers on Election Day 2008 have been slipping away from the president's party (lately, Helene Cooper and Monica Davey indulged in some hand–wringing in the New York Times about the defection of women voters — who usually vote for Democrats but appear to be pulling away from them this year; so, too, did Liz Sidoti and Darlene Superville with the Associated Press).

They aren't necessarily switching parties. They're just resuming their usual pattern — and not voting at all. Some may be disappointed — as idealists often are — and some may feel permanently alienated from the system, but there are always some of those.

It's just more pronounced this time, with so many first–time and seldom–participated voters who showed up to vote for Obama last time — and now appear to be living down to expectations in the midterm.

There's no telling, of course, what these folks might do in 2012. But one thing, I think, can be said with some certainty as we approach Election Day 2010: even if the Republicans aren't winning over these folks in the midterm, Obama isn't retaining them. Electorally, they might as well not exist. They might as well be one of George Orwell's "unpersons."

Meanwhile, the GOP base — the composition of which has been fairly consistent for the last two or three decades — is said to be energized and eager to vote.

Whether turnout is low or high, Gallup is saying, Republicans stand to win and win big. Pollster Peter Hart recently said the Democrats face a Category 4 hurricane on Election Day.

The House

And I was reminded of something John Boehner said about six months ago: "at least 100 [House] seats are in play." Many political observers scoffed at such bravado; after all, what Boehner suggested would be truly historic, unprecedented in this nation's history.

(Well, a 100–seat swing might be unprecedented, but we have come close to that at times in the 19th century and in the first half of the 20th century.)

No matter what has happened in the last six months, to be honest, it still doesn't seem likely that the Republicans can win 100 House seats from the Democrats.

Of course, Boehner didn't say Republicans would win 100 seats, only that 100 would be in play. And, while each party would like to think it can win all the seats that are in play in a given election (and can devote seemingly endless hours to concocting scenarios in which it is conceivable to do so), such a thing simply never happens in modern America.

But today, some of the foremost political observers in America are suggesting gains that even they might have found impossible to believe only a few months ago.

• Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics and perhaps the most spot–on political prognosticator in America today, predicts that Republicans will gain 47 House seats.
  
  To put that into context, let's look at the largest gains experienced by either party in the last half century — Republicans won 54 seats in 1994, 47 seats in 1966 and 34 seats in 1980, and Democrats won 49 seats in 1974, 49 seats in 1958 and 34 seats in 1964.
  
  If Sabato is correct — and last time, he was darn near perfect — it would match the Republicans' gains in 1966.
  
  Oh, and take note, you Boehner defenders — Sabato says 99 Democrat–held House seats are in play.


• Nate Silver of the New York Times predicted something similar.
  
  The GOP, he said, will win 49 seats on Nov. 2.


• Charlie Cook, another accurate political handicapper, projects a 52–seat gain for the Republicans.
  
  Which puts him in roughly the same range as the other two ...


• But Jay Cost's prediction at The Weekly Standard dwarfs them all.
  
  Cost says Republicans will win 61 seats. That would be their biggest gain in more than 70 years.

No matter which one you think is more likely to be correct, the Republicans would take control of the House. They need to win 39.

I, too, think the Republicans will capture control of the House. I think Cost's prediction is too extreme, that it is more likely to be somewhere between Sabato and Cook.

I'm more inclined to favor Sabato — but I think his number, too, is too high — and say that I expect the Republicans to win about 45 House seats.

Conventional Wisdom

Conventional wisdom can be a useful thing, but it isn't infallible.

It's generally well–informed speculation. It tends to be based on historical experience, which is particularly relevant to students of history. History students have learned that history does repeat itself.

In December 2007 — just prior to what has since been acknowledged as the beginning of the recession — conventional wisdom said the war in Iraq would be the big issue in the 2008 campaign. This was the same conventional wisdom that was sure the Democrats would nominate Hillary Clinton and wasn't sure whether the Republicans would nominate Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani but was pretty sure the GOP wouldn't nominate John McCain.

About the only thing that was right about that forecast was that the Democratic nomination would be groundbreaking. But Hillary wasn't the groundbreaking nominee.

It's been interesting to watch the evolution of conventional wisdom in the first nine months of the Obama presidency.

Last spring, conventional wisdom painted a bleak picture for Republicans for the third straight election cycle. But as the year has progressed, the outlook for the midterms of 2010 has gradually improved for Republicans.

And this week, Charlie Cook asked, in the National Journal, "Are The Democrats Ready For 10 Percent Unemployment?"

As a student of history, that seems like a loaded question to me. The obvious answer appears to be "No."

Historically, midterm elections have almost always been rough for the incumbent party. The reasons vary, but generally the exceptions to the rule have been years in which the focus was on international crises.

When things are bad domestically, voters hold the incumbent party responsible, especially in the midterm elections. That is the lesson of history. In the last half century, the exceptions were 1962, when Democrats benefited from Kennedy's leadership during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and 2002, when Republicans benefited from a surge in public support in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks.

In today's world, it certainly isn't inconceivable that an international crisis could occur in the next 12 months. But without one it seems the Democrats are likely to sustain some losses.

Oh, no, I can almost hear my Democratic friends protesting. All this was Bush's fault.

Cook has the answer to that:

---

"Polls may show a majority of Americans understand that this recession started under President George W. Bush, but every day, President Obama, and inferentially his party, take on a bit more ownership. By the 2010 midterm elections, the economy will completely belong to Obama and Democrats."

---

Over the years, Cook has proven himself to be a generally reliable political forecaster. He's been as nonpartisan in his predictions as anyone I've seen, and his reasoning tends to be sound.

In the spring, he anticipated a difficult midterm election for Republicans. But, as job losses have mounted, his opinion has changed. And today he see the dire state of unemployment as the critical element in next year's elections — even if the most optimistic predictions of economic growth turn out to be on target.

"What should concern Democrats is that while there is a diversity of views about just how much the economy will grow next year, the views of both optimists and pessimists converge on the politically important question of unemployment," Cook writes. "The consensus is there will be very, very little job growth next year."

It is logical to anticipate that. It has happened before.

I think Cook is right when he says, "The distinct possibility, and maybe even probability, that unemployment will be hovering around 10 percent for a solid year should petrify." It is based on historical experience.

But that only tells half of the story, I think. Perhaps the other half is best described as the history of inexperience.

It was a unique coalition that elected Obama. It included some groups — young people, blacks and other minorities — who haven't been electorally active in the past. Many were drawn into the process by Obama's charisma, not unlike millions of Americans who participated in the 1992 election solely because of the charisma of independent candidate Ross Perot.

I've seen no numbers concerning what the Perot supporters did in 1994. How many went back to their old ways and didn't participate because Perot wasn't on the ballot? How many continued to participate? And which party won their support?

The answers to those questions might provide some insight into the behavior of voters who are attracted to charismatic candidates. But Perot was an independent candidate. Obama was a major party's nominee.

Many of the same questions that could have been asked of Perot's supporters could be asked of some of the untraditional voters who helped Obama win — and then some. Their party preference was clear enough in 2008. Has it changed? Why?

If they still support the Democrats' objectives, can they be lured back to the polls when Obama is absent from the ballot?

Future Shock

In my life, I've often wondered if, during times of economic distress, comedians feel torn.

Do they vote for a candidate because he/she will be good for their country? Or do they pick a candidate because he/she will be good for their business?

On the eve of a new presidential administration, I wonder if there are some Republican politicians who feel somewhat the same way.

If the new administration's policies to battle the recession are successful, a lot of people can be spared a lot of pain. But that could also mean a real windfall of good will and support at the ballot box for the majority party in 2010.

For Republicans, the year 2012, when Democrats must defend the White House and 24 of 33 Senate seats, is the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. But the storm isn't over yet. "Republicans first have to get past the 2010 races that, at first glance, would appear to put the GOP at a disadvantage for a third straight cycle," say Charlie Cook and Jennifer Duffy in the National Journal.

And, after taking a beating in the elections of 2006 and 2008, the Republicans won't be anxious for a three-peat.

But that just might be the alternative.

Cook and Duffy observe that, because of the gains Republicans enjoyed earlier in this decade, they will go into the 2010 Senate elections with more seats to defend than the Democrats.

Republicans hold 19 seats that will be up for election in 2010. Democrats hold 15. However, two of those Democrats will be appointees, chosen to replace Barack Obama and Interior Secretary-designate Ken Salazar for the last two years of their terms. Those are the seats that are up in this phase of the naturally recurring election cycle.

There also will be special elections for the remainder of Hillary Clinton's and Joe Biden's terms, which will be filled for the next two years by appointees. Thus, the Democrats will have 17 seats to defend in 2010, and four will be held by appointees.

"Ultimately, not all of the appointed senators will find themselves in competitive races, but these 17 seats are all at more risk than they were a month ago," Cook and Duffy write. "With potential retirements still unknown, one other very vulnerable Democratic seat is that held by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, whose poll numbers are somewhat anemic."

If Barack Obama and the Democrats can preside over a clearly recovering economy, they will have a real opportunity to claim the "veto-proof majority" that just barely slipped through their fingers this time.

Two Republican incumbents that I know of — Florida's Mel Martinez and Kansas' Sam Brownback — have announced that they will not seek re-election. Republicans probably can expect to retain Brownback's seat, but Martinez's may be different.

Cook and Duffy agree that Florida is vulnerable. They also suggest that Republican seats in Kentucky and Louisiana are in "immediate danger." And, they write, GOP senators in Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania "could face difficult races if Democrats recruit the right challengers."

However, numbers from the last 10 midterm elections (going back to 1970) indicate an average net loss of 2.7 seats for the party in power, they point out.

"[I]t's hard to think that national dynamics won't be at work, one way or another," they write. "New presidents often make missteps, and their honeymoons can end quickly. If that happens this time, a few of the vulnerable Republican seats would likely become less so, and a few of the Democratic seats that appear relatively safe would come into play.

"On the other hand, if Republicans are still 8 or 9 points behind in party affiliation, if their 'brand' hasn't been repaired, and if they are still facing a competence gap — an attribute they used to own — this could be yet another very painful cycle for them."

Forecasters: GOP Might As Well Give Up on Senate

Charlie Cook writes in the National Journal that "[i]n the House and Senate contests, the debate is about how many seats the Republicans will lose; they no longer have a realistic chance of holding their own."

The grim outlook includes what Cook now expects to be losses of Senate seats currently held by Republican stalwarts like John Warner in Virginia and Pete Domenici in New Mexico.

Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics agrees with Cook that Warner's seat and Domenici's seat are likely to be captured by the Democrats this year.

Cook says he's shifted Republican Sen. Gordon Smith's re-election bid in Oregon from "leans Republican" to "toss-up." He says Smith doesn't face "an especially formidable challenger," but "the political climate has effectively erased the natural advantages that Smith brings to the race."

Sabato still has Smith's race rated as "leans Republican," but it appears to have been more than a month since he made any adjustments to that race on his website.

Cook has five other races listed as "toss-ups," and they're all held by Republicans. Four incumbents are running — Norm Coleman in Minnesota, John Sununu in New Hampshire, Ted Stevens in Alaska and Roger Wicker, who was appointed to fill the seat that was vacated by Mississippi's Trent Lott and now runs in a special election to serve the rest of the term.

The fifth "toss-up" is the open seat left by the retirement of Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard.

Sabato says the Colorado seat and New Hampshire seat are likely to switch to the Democrats. He agrees that the Alaska seat and the Mississippi seat look like "toss-ups."

But Mississippi is only a toss-up because Wicker was appointed, not elected. Mississippi, though, has been voting Republican regularly for several decades, so my inclination is to make Wicker the favorite to retain his seat. I'm not convinced that a Democrat can win a statewide race there.

And I'll need to see more evidence before I am persuaded that Stevens is in trouble in Alaska.

Sabato also hasn't changed his opinion that Coleman is likely to hold his seat. Perhaps the announcement that former Gov. Jesse Ventura will not be running for the Senate has something to do with it — although Sabato says that "[Ventura's] votes almost certainly would have come at [Democrat Al] Franken’s expense."

Cook contends that Elizabeth Dole's campaign for re-election in North Carolina is "getting increasingly competitive," although I have yet to see evidence of that.

In fact, I think some of what Cook is being told these days is mostly wishful thinking on the part of Democrats who are letting their imaginations get the better of them.

"Democrats ... contend that they are making progress against GOP Sens. John Cornyn of Texas, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, and Pat Roberts of Kansas," writes Cook, "but those boasts are not particularly convincing at this stage."

As someone who lives in Texas, I can assure you that Cornyn is quite likely to win re-election with no trouble. Sabato agrees.

I also lived in Oklahoma for four years, and I find it hard to imagine that Inhofe can be beaten there. Again, Sabato agrees that the seat should remain "solid Republican."

But I think the indications are clear that Democrats will gain about five Senate seats in November — not quite enough to make their majority veto-proof (in case they're having to deal with a Republican administration) but enough to make them formidable, no matter who sits in the Oval Office.

Political observers have mentioned only one Democratic Senate seat that might be in danger — the one currently held by Louisiana's Mary Landrieu. "What is clear is that the state is trending Republican," Cook says of Louisiana, but he concedes that Landrieu, who was narrowly elected in 1996 and then narrowly re-elected in 2002, "has a much stronger record of accomplishments this time ... and she is running a better campaign than in the past."

Sabato seems to agree, although he says the race is "still far too close to call."